Attention!!! Pro Sports Daily will be down on Wednesday morning from 5:00am - 7:00am eastern time for database maintenance. All Sports Direct Inc. properties will be down during this scheduled outage.
Sorry for any inconvenience that this outage may cause.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

haslett's coaching

everyone wanted to fire haslett when we went on that losing stretch, and now look at what he's done...

lets not forget guys, the offense stalled for periods of time during all of our last 4 wins. haslett had to step the defense up.. dallas in the 1st and 3rd quarter, how well they did against foles, NY for only giving up FGs and shutting them down in the 2nd half (they shut down so called MR 4th Qr), and holding flacco to 55 passing yards for the WHOLE 2ND HALF.....

our offense gets all the credit, but lets be honest, the defense is what has kept us in games and not losing them late... how many crucial sacks have we had with no pass-rush.. how many crucial TO's have we forced with no secoundary and no pass-rush.. its haslett getting the troops in position...

remember last year when our offense was horrific, with just a healthy orakpo and carriker(we didnt have a FS and landry was our for most of the year), it was our defense that kept us in all those games....

I'm torn here, I think in certain situations early on in the season we lost a game or two because of aggressive play calling, now I see that he's game planning really well with a depleted D, I don't know if he should go or stay. We had a beast D before he got here, converted the D, I was really confused about that....I'm still not sold that it was the right move. Hopefully next season with a healthy D I'll be able to better understand, I love being wrong.

I'm torn here, I think in certain situations early on in the season we lost a game or two because of aggressive play calling, now I see that he's game planning really well with a depleted D, I don't know if he should go or stay. We had a beast D before he got here, converted the D, I was really confused about that....I'm still not sold that it was the right move. Hopefully next season with a healthy D I'll be able to better understand, I love being wrong.

We only had a "beast D" in ranking only, and even then, only because D rankings are by yards allowed. By itself, that's not really a great measure of a defense, nor is it very telling of how much the D contributes to winning/losing. Seems a lot of people are forgetting all of the complaints from back then about how our D couldn't generate pressure or create turnovers to help out the offense by giving it it good field position, more opportunities, or even scoring occasionally.

In 2009, our D was ranked #10 (again, in yards allowed), but we gave up an avg. of 21 pts./game and only had 17 takeaways for the season.

This season, we're ranked a lowly 28th in yards allowed, and are giving up an avg. of 25.3 pts./game, but we have 24 takeaways with 3 games to go still, and even with Orakpo out, to my recollection, we're still creating pressure more consistently than we used to with our 4-3 D. We averaged more sacks/game in 2009 (2.5) than we are now (1.8), but obviously injuries to Orakpo and Carriker have a lot to do with that, and like I said, I think we create more consistent pressure even if the sack numbers aren't as good.

Now, certainly it helps that our offense is protecting the ball a LOT better than it used to (12 giveaways vs. 28 in 2009) and it's better able to take advantage of the opportunities the D gives it, but all things considered, I think the D we have now (esp. when at full strength) gives us a better chance to win than our old 4-3 defense did.

We just need to upgrade our personnel in the secondary and we'll be much improved, and we could get a lot of help just by getting our safeties back next year that we expected to start this year (Meriweather and Tanard Jackson). Getting a healthy Meriweather back in time, if at all, might wishful thinking though.

We only had a "beast D" in ranking only, and even then, only because D rankings are by yards allowed. By itself, that's not really a great measure of a defense, nor is it very telling of how much the D contributes to winning/losing. Seems a lot of people are forgetting all of the complaints from back then about how our D couldn't generate pressure or create turnovers to help out the offense by giving it it good field position, more opportunities, or even scoring occasionally.

In 2009, our D was ranked #10 (again, in yards allowed), but we gave up an avg. of 21 pts./game and only had 17 takeaways for the season.

This season, we're ranked a lowly 28th in yards allowed, and are giving up an avg. of 25.3 pts./game, but we have 24 takeaways with 3 games to go still, and even with Orakpo out, to my recollection, we're still creating pressure more consistently than we used to with our 4-3 D. We averaged more sacks/game in 2009 (2.5) than we are now (1.8), but obviously injuries to Orakpo and Carriker have a lot to do with that, and like I said, I think we create more consistent pressure even if the sack numbers aren't as good.

Now, certainly it helps that our offense is protecting the ball a LOT better than it used to (12 giveaways vs. 28 in 2009) and it's better able to take advantage of the opportunities the D gives it, but all things considered, I think the D we have now (esp. when at full strength) gives us a better chance to win than our old 4-3 defense did.

We just need to upgrade our personnel in the secondary and we'll be much improved, and we could get a lot of help just by getting our safeties back next year that we expected to start this year (Meriweather and Tanard Jackson). Getting a healthy Meriweather back in time, if at all, might wishful thinking though.

I disagree, our D was good, they were very good considering the offense constantly kept them on the field...respectfully, you are off here. We control the ball much better now. The defense was just much better then, I don't even see this as an argument, perhaps next year you will be right but since we've made the switch it has been really bad.

Oh and it was a beast D considering the offense was so terrible, it's almost one of the craziest things I've seen, we would get the ball back for the offense and 10 seconds later the D was back on the field. I really hope I'm wrong but for now I like what we had before.

Im sorry but Hasslet still sucks the secondary is a joke. Go back and watch the games i mean really what them we have been saved by drops penaltys and over throws just lucky breaks. Do i think the D is loaded with talent NO but there are teams with less talent that play alot better than us if a play or two goes the other way you would be calling for his head instead of posting something acting like hes this great coach because hes far from it below average at best. There are 3 games left for the old Hasslet that let one player beat us when we played the Rams to show back up.

I finally feel like the Redskins are building for the future! Some will say we gave up to much I say would you really want 16 games of john Beck enough said!!!!!!!!

I disagree, our D was good, they were very good considering the offense constantly kept them on the field...respectfully, you are off here. We control the ball much better now. The defense was just much better then, I don't even see this as an argument, perhaps next year you will be right but since we've made the switch it has been really bad.

In what ways, exactly, were we so much better? I think the fact that we had better personnel in the secondary back then is coloring your judgment because we didn't get beaten deep as much, but that's a personnel issue, not scheme. Most of the best defenses in the league run a 3-4. It creates a lot more problems for offenses and is harder to play against.

Originally Posted by AWH1979

Oh and it was a beast D considering the offense was so terrible, it's almost one of the craziest things I've seen, we would get the ball back for the offense and 10 seconds later the D was back on the field. I really hope I'm wrong but for now I like what we had before.

It couldn't have happened that many times when we were only getting like 17 turnovers all season. If you're talking about just defensive stops, then yeah, the offense back then didn't do the defense any favors by not being able to move the ball and going 3-and-out a lot. However, the defense back then also didn't set the offense up with a lot of short fields and extra opportunities.

I like the 3-4 long-term better than the 4-3. The issues we're having now are personnel-related, and some of that is owing to injury. If we had Orakpo in the line-up as planned, the pressure he would've been generating would've helped out our secondary. His absence has further exposed a known weakness, so it's clear we need to upgrade some players, but overall I'm happy we made the switch to the 3-4 for our long-term future.

Weren't we something like a top 15 rated defense last year? And then we cut all our safeties and sign new ones that never see the field, and Orakpo and Carriker are done pretty early in the season. I don't see how this is a coaching issue.

its not a coaching issue....lets be real..when we get to the QB, dhall wilson look like studs. When we give the QB all day...they get burned....pretty simple concept. with that being said...we need both secondary and a little more pass rush. we need to have starting caliber players as back ups...thats how u win SBs. if orakpo or cofield, or carriker goes down next year, then what do we do? must have more pass rush, and work on secondary at same time.

its not a coaching issue....lets be real..when we get to the QB, dhall wilson look like studs. When we give the QB all day...they get burned....pretty simple concept. with that being said...we need both secondary and a little more pass rush. we need to have starting caliber players as back ups...thats how u win SBs. if orakpo or cofield, or carriker goes down next year, then what do we do? must have more pass rush, and work on secondary at same time.

couldnt have said it better....these same 2 CBs were good last year when we were #4 in the league in sacks....Josh wilson was considered our best DB and played like it...

as for the defense being "stud" before haslett, that is just no true.. they were ranked highly with blache, but only because he played safe.... no blitzing, poor tackling, no TOs, no sacks, just good Run D and safe coverage... and lets not forget, we had how many 30+ year olds on that defense...a change HAD to happen..

i agree, haslett was over-agressive in the beginning, but thats what i expected.. with a healthy line-up, we have one of the best defensive personelles in the nfl....our front7 alone is scary as hell.

I disagree, our D was good, they were very good considering the offense constantly kept them on the field...respectfully, you are off here. We control the ball much better now. The defense was just much better then, I don't even see this as an argument, perhaps next year you will be right but since we've made the switch it has been really bad.

If you say so.

in 2009
we were 18th in pts/game
21st in 3rd down %
18th in penalties
19th in completion %
26th in ints
18th in QB rate
17th in yards/rec
18th in forced fumbles
32nd in takeaways

those are all crap numbers. This D was not good. just because one stat says they were a top 15 defense doesn't mean you can ignore all the rest of the stats. The most telling defensive stats to me are points/game and turnovers. if you can excel in these 2 stats then most likely you have a pretty good defense. Clearly that wasn't the case in 2009.

its not a coaching issue....lets be real..when we get to the QB, dhall wilson look like studs. When we give the QB all day...they get burned....pretty simple concept. with that being said...we need both secondary and a little more pass rush. we need to have starting caliber players as back ups...thats how u win SBs. if orakpo or cofield, or carriker goes down next year, then what do we do? must have more pass rush, and work on secondary at same time.

in all honesty without pressure any corner will look bad because you can cover forever. Wilson is good and hall is ok but with pressure they both held their own this season without much pressure they are asked to do more. This past week that first touchdown to boldin was on williams which he I hope he is gone after the season

in 2009
we were 18th in pts/game
21st in 3rd down %
18th in penalties
19th in completion %
26th in ints
18th in QB rate
17th in yards/rec
18th in forced fumbles
32nd in takeaways

those are all crap numbers. This D was not good. just because one stat says they were a top 15 defense doesn't mean you can ignore all the rest of the stats. The most telling defensive stats to me are points/game and turnovers. if you can excel in these 2 stats then most likely you have a pretty good defense. Clearly that wasn't the case in 2009.

and our defense was one of the oldest might i add... no sacks, no TOs, just try to keep them from getting the first downs...kinda lame if u ask me